So you, for instance, are fine with some degree of restriction on late-term abortions (e.g. restrictions that would clearly avoid "pre-birth infanticide")?

If yes, why not say so up front? Why (apparently) try to sound unreasonable, even when being specifically called to sound more reasonable?

Or, if no, you're not, do you have some other meaning of "advocating" in mind?

(To be clear: merely permitting late-term abortions with no restrictions seems--without a compelling argument to the contrary--potentially as extreme as merely permitting infanticide shortly after birth.)

Maybe Dancova's individual positions are problematic, but that doesn't avoid the value in having counterarguments against the charge of extremism (the validity of which do not depend Dancova's views on the "natural human state"--it is possible for someone to make a good argument in one area but be mistaken in others).